| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| bear = Joe | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 11:49 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
We have meet at the fence. One example is Jesus being held to account for my sins. I have trouble with that perspective. Another example is the concept of God destroying babies, according to writing in The Bible. I have a problem with that since that sounds to me like murder. This is a place to meet at the fence.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 01:27 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
When people meet at the fence do they agree to disagree, or do they continue to talk about it? It seems if I understand Sergey, only one truth is possible and one must strive to get to that truth. It seems if I understand Mike, that truth is within perception so multiple truths can exist. It seems neither of the 2 think it is ok to agree to disagree. I am standing my ground because Truth is the Word of God and I am not changing my ground. However, if I have misunderstood God's Word, the Bible, then the Bible is right and I am wrong. One example is Jesus being held to account for my sins. I have trouble with that perspective. Joe, you, and only you, are accountable for your sin. God says the equitable commerce price for sin is death. You know, Josiah Warren had a stipulation on the labor dollor papers. One could trade for equitable labor or for corn if I remember right. You may redeem your sin certificate for death or for Jesus Christ who conquered death. The choice is yours. http://www.power-independence.com/forum/attachment.php?id=2 The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life thru Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23 ----------------- God destroying babies, according to writing in The Bible. I have a problem with that since that sounds to me like murder. My answer does not change: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2909567On the Subject of Killing Babies
...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 04:48 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
To me it is not a case of agreeing to disagree, it is a case of me being, so far, incapable of perceiving the truth. During discussions I find that we make progress. For now I have book work to continue, and once I have the submission ready for sending to the printer I think it may be a good idea to send it to you one more time for one more look. The page number total is smaller, so I am redoing the Table of Contents, and that may be done again, if it sounds like a good idea to get the page numbers back up to the number that fit the Printer Estimate which included a specific measure for the Spine width on the cover, and that may not measure up with fewer pages. The Text was changed when I moved the margins to .5, which was recommended by the Printer, and the Text changed when changing the size of the book to the current size which is 8.5 x 5.5. The Text may be too small, and parts of the Text is oddly spaced with too much space between some symbols and not enough space between other symbols. I don't know if that can be fixed with a Font Change or some other "justification"? There is a setting in Word called "Mirror Margins" instead of book fold where the binding area is moved to the proper side of each individual page: that was another Printer Specification. Much of the gaps between each individual person, it seems to me, can be attributed to misunderstanding except when dealing with people who willfully distort the facts so as to cause miscommunication. When we have moved from topics were we find gaps in our perspectives, to other places, other subjects, and in time the gaps appear to narrow down some. I know, for example, that the concept of the fear of God being to hate evil, in that Proverbs 8 scripture, measures up as a bridge building block, so far as I can tell. I don't know how much closer our perspectives get, but that specific message moves in that direction to me.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 04:52 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Joe, I know it's hardly my business, but I wish you luck beating your head against the wall, because I already said that I won't. But I know that every person's wrong choice is punished the very moment of committing it. And it's not some arcane force being applied by some supernatural being. I know the ropes of said mathematics, so we can discuss that in some other thread if you find this prospect to your interest. As is with any development, certain early stage axioms become obsolete and no longer accommodate reality. Seeing the vast amount of data you have produced on the subject of political economy I imagine you think that too. So the problem occurs when people professing those axiom are unable to evolve past them. Kinda like with modern scientific dogmas - just ways to not admit that mistakes were made and deal with those appropriately. You and I touched the subject of gravity once. I think that one alone is enough to prove the point. Now all this is kinda off topic so feel free to get rid of this comment.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 05:00 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I think there may be some merit to fencing our discussions in such a way as to create rooms, and this room is where bear and Joe meet at the fence. You can enter our room, but a new room can be created to see if we can discuss things with Sergey, bear, and I, all at once. I think there is much to learn in any case, since negotiation, and seeking common ground, builds trust instead of destroying it, which is often the case. Often is the case that people trust that other people will resort to deception. From that point what can be the next step in any case? I can make another topic right now, to leave this room for bear and I to meet at our fence, a fence we have built up for some time now. If that makes sense, then I'll see you in the next room titled bear = Sergey = Joe.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 05:26 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, Jee-Host, I realize this is none of my business, but I take issue with the following: 1. I wish you luck beating your head against the wall 2. I know that every person's wrong choice is punished the very moment of committing it. 3. So the problem occurs when people professing those axiom are unable to evolve past them. Number 1) Are you referring to me a brick wall? Number 2) How do you know that what you know about a person being punished is even true? Number 3) Who says that someone who doesn't accept your truth has not yet "evolved" to your state of being? If I am not mistaken, you are saying that I am an unevolved, thick-headed wall, cemented together with obsolete, archaic axioms and no longer able to accommodate reality. You might consider that the very math that you plan on using was created by the Creator of the Universe. If someone is delusional, please know that I have not set myself up to be God. ...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 05:52 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, if you would like me to look at the word doc to see if I can help any with the character spacing, I'd be glad to do it. Did the printer specifiy a font size? Using a certain font size may bring the page count back up, but if the page count is less, wouldn't the printer just give a new estimate for a lower page count? Or perhaps the estimate is based upon a range number of pages instead of an exact page count?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 05:53 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Joe, I just made a suggestion for you an me to discuss something if you find it interesting, nothing more. Didn't see a thread dedicated to you and me then, my bad. bear, >>> Number 1) Are YOU referring to me a brick wall? No. >>> Number 2) How do YOU know anything? I think I made a best explanation I can make in English about knowledge in "Open conversation" thread. It's not that big - shouldn't be hard to find. >>> Number 3) Who says that someone who doesn't accept YOUR truth has not yet "evolved" to YOUR state of being? I just learned that I apparently have personal truth. That throws my mind in a loop. Don't have anything to say about that at the moment. >>> If I am not mistaken, YOU are saying that I am an unevolved, thick-headed wall, cemented together with obsolete, archaic axioms and no longer able to accommodate reality. You are mistaken. At the very least partially. And anyway - I thought you and I dropped discussing anything religion-related. >>> You might consider that the very math that you plan on using was created by the Creator of the Universe. Considered. Plausible. No connection to _your_ God though. Enough with religion between you and me. >>> If someone is delusional, please know that I have not set myself up to be God. Never said that. Even the thought never crossed my mind. Please know it. Now I'm out of this thread, cause it's for you and Joe, please excuse me for barging in without noting thread specified for me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 06:13 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Yes, we did drop the subject and then you showed up talking about it, and if you were not referring to me when talking about Joe beating his head against THE wall, then what were you talking about? I am sorry I used all-caps when saying YOU. I had changed that, but obviously you already saw it. I tend to try to tone things down. I guess I should write somewhere else before hitting save here.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 09:11 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I've been pretending to be someone capable of helping people discuss topics. I will certainly make mistakes. This forum has been here for 7 years. We have already traveled a lot way in reaching for the elusive truth - it seems to me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 10:26 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I've been pretending to be someone capable of helping people discuss topics. I will certainly make mistakes. This forum has been here for 7 years. We have already traveled a lot way in reaching for the elusive truth - it seems to me. I don't see that you are pretending to be anything. I see you as accomplishing things. I think Sergey and I, if we are able, will have to figure out how to talk with each other. The dynamics are different. I am really enjoying reading his history of Russia and I have to admit I feel much like a simpleton when I read you and Mike and Sergey talking about stuff I never even think about. I feel like my words do not measure up. I think Joe, that you allowing me to at least speak on Spiritual things allowed me some kind of realm of confidence even in the midst of the mind numbing truth I was having to swallow. Sergey automatically says I have not "evolved." Well, how do you think that makes me feel? It does not make me feel like I know anything. It makes me feel stupid in his eyes. So what do I have to offer? Nothing. I am an archaic relic out of touch with reality. Certainly, I know nothing, and now instead of laughing at his FacePalm picture, tears are streaming. I am having a hard week...again. I left you some words above about the book. It is hard to know whether you have seen my words or not because other posts end up separating them, or rather raising them from the last comment. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of everyone lording their opinions over me, both here, at the DP, and in real life. Our country is going down the tubes and it is bewildering and I don't know who to trust. Everyone is pushin social agendas, political agendas, and thought agendas. I don't have an agenda. But I am a person, and I am allowed to have my own opinions even if they are not as lofty or as socially evolved as everyone elses. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 12th, 2013 10:30 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I don't see that you are pretending to be anything. I see you as accomplishing things. bear, you wrote that sentence for reasons that I can guess. My guess is that you wrote that sentence because you are honest about what you tell people, as the phrase goes: "Let the chips fall as they may." We do not see things the same way. I have to pretend to do something to then reach for a goal. If I get to the goal, does that erase my pretense of imagining to be capable of doing something I can't really know that I can do? Take this book editing stuff, for example. It was the highest mountain in view, with shear cliffs on all sides, and yet we both pretended to be author and publisher. That is my view, and I express my view with words. My view does not have to be your view, and words tend to fail to communicate precise meaning, unless the people discussing diverse perspectives pretend that they can reach for that goal. I think Sergey and I, if we are able, will have to figure out how to talk with each other. The dynamics are different. I am really enjoying reading his history of Russia and I have to admit I feel much like a simpleton when I read you and Mike and Sergey talking about stuff I never even think about. I feel like my words do not measure up. Here is where you have to pretend that I am honest when I say that your words are very important to me, because they are honest words, and because your unique experiences are no less valuable to me than any person ever alive, living, or who will live, because I have no capacity to know the absolute truth, and for all I know all life on earth depends upon you living the life you will live exactly the way you will live your life, without deviation of any kind in the least. Mike and I have a long history of sharing great things to little boys, great things to teen age men, and great things to human beings, and we exemplify productive relationships, in my opinion. We have not discussed much, for reasons that can be understood in time, but we are now finding out how each of us perceives life, in greater detail, compared to merely being close friends: family. Sergey and I have a very short history, but a familiar one because of the rarity of such relationships happening, whereby a person who does not settle for less than better understanding meets a similarly driven person, so in that way I see a repeat of my relationship with you happening again with my relationship with Sergey. If the goal is to know better, instead of worse, then help is needed, since one person is very limited in their own personal experiences, and error is likely, so there has to be a way, a better way, to avoid error, and gain help. How? I think Joe, that you allowing me to at least speak on Spiritual things allowed me some kind of realm of confidence even in the midst of the mind numbing truth I was having to swallow. Sergey may be seeing a thing in view called Religion but he is seeing the Counterfeit version, and he is not fooled by the Counterfeit version. When you say things, he sees the Counterfeit version. Does that mean that Sergey cannot be one of God's Children? You are not God, so you can't know, but you can pretend to know, and you may reach the goal of knowing if, or if not, Sergey is one of God's Children, despite the fact that he does not say the things you say. What, if anything, does Sergey see that may resemble God? Is there a power in view, to Sergey, where that power works to do all the things God does, in your view? I don't know. I do know that words often fail to work when the goal is to communicate accurate meaning. I am pretending to be a honest friend to you, Sergey, and Mike, and so far that goal appears to be working. We have discussed the time/action perspective compared to the time/inaction perspective. I used the quote from Marx as quoted in the book by Erich Fromm to convey that time/action perspective as it compares to the time/inaction perspective. Thinking in static time, as if people can "own" things, to me, is a part of the Great Deception used by Legal Criminals to steal earnings from those who earn, and then those Legal Criminals have investment POWER to use to keep on stealing. If you can imagine being ahead of time to a place where you now find Sergey to be an honest friend worth the effort to know better, then you can pretend to see how you got there at that point. There are no points, time keeps on going by, you can take a picture, and then have a picture, but even that goes on by, relentlessly, persistently, and so it may be a good idea to understand, or even embrace, the POWER at work. I don't know. Sergey automatically says I have not "evolved." Well, how do you think that makes me feel? It does not make me feel like I know anything. It makes me feel stupid in his eyes. So what do I have to offer? Nothing. I am an archaic relic out of touch with reality. Certainly, I know nothing, and now instead of laughing at his FacePalm picture, tears are streaming. Because, because, because, communication is full of obstacles? In light of the POWER of DECEPTION working against our life form, a POWER working in each individual mind, in each individual thought, and in each individual action, whereby millions of innocent victims are tortured daily, then murdered, the obstacles overwhelm an individual at moments of weakness? Is that a surprise? You are being tortured, but I don't think it is Sergey that is willfully endeavoring to torture you, for his fun, and his profit. He may be much more like you, than not, and if he were to be you, having all your experiences, he might be doing the same things you are doing now, and why not? How can you answer the question? Can you pretend to be Sergey, and see if it is possible the other way? No, you can't, because you did not grow up in Russia. Your experience with Religion is a genuine personal experience you have with God, in your own way, connected to God. You may never be able to share that with anyone, other than to report your findings. What do you think Sergey is doing? Does he know something similar to God? I want to find out. I have not found God, as you have, and I am jealous of you. Sergey is not jealous of you, he thinks your God is the same God his experiences suggest to be God, which is a patented absurdity, a big lie, a False Front, a Falsehood. He hears God, and what does he see? You hear God, and what do you see? It may be a good idea to put that on the shelf, and allow Sergey to help us understand Russian History from someone in Russia instead of us "knowing" Russian History from our personal experiences that include a whole lot of our earnings flowing to people who then consume our earnings in the effort to make us stupid. I am having a hard week...again. I left you some words above about the book. I think the Personal Message thing can become a useful device. I don't normally watch that, but I can work to make it a habit if you run into failures to communicate and access that device, or e-mail, or red letters and caps, whatever you can invent, produce, and maintain as your way of communicating is, often, exemplary of an honest Christian: the real thing and not a counterfeit version. I hope you can have many better days compared to these difficult ones. Our country is going down the tubes and it is bewildering and I don't know who to trust. Everyone is pushin social agendas, political agendas, and thought agendas. Me too. 1. End the FED 2. End the IRS 3. Bring the Troops Home 4. Do so by July 4th, 2013 If you want to find friend from foe, how can you know, better from worse? Ask if there is a way out of this mess, and you were given an answer. I have not been given that answer. So are my days worse than yours since I am not one of the ones saved by Jesus? Here you can go to your safe place and help me with my answers. Imagine a day, it could happen, we can pretend that it will happen, where I am given that answer, and I too am saved by Jesus. You can't say that I have not asked for God, or Jesus, or God and Jesus, to help me believe this truth that you know, and be honest, because I've told you that I have tried to believe, and it just does not happen. You know, or should know by now, that I do try to believe. I am jealous, you have certainly heard that much. How do you know that Sergey, and many other people, were not tricked into trying to believe in God, and it turned out that they were actually trying to believe in a False God, and now they are jaded? Been there, done that? I don't know. I don't have an agenda. But I am a person, and I am allowed to have my own opinions even if they are not as lofty or as socially evolved as everyone elses. Sergey may be able to say hurtful things to you, when he intends to be helping you, from his viewpoint. Look here: You care enough to offer a viewpoint that you know to be true. Can someone else know what you know? How has your generous offer of that understanding worked on me? Am I just too stupid? Am I not willing to know? Is there something in my experience that gets in the way? Is there something in my thinking that gets in the way? Are there actions I willfully do that get in the way, these sins you say are sins? Do you have any idea as to how your welcome viewpoint affects my thoughts and actions in time, and in place, as the conveyor belt of human existence marches toward World War III and all that goes with it? I won't be the worst person you meet, nor the best, but I've earned trust, which isn't a prize, since you can trust that someone will lie to you, in any case. I don't think Sergey is willfully intending to cause you trouble, and I trust that you are not willfully intending to cause anyone any trouble. Does Sergey find cause to feel troubled? What is face planting all about? I don't know. I can guess. I can pretend to know. Will I know?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 01:33 am |
|
13th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
We do not see things the same way. I have to pretend to do something to then reach for a goal. If I get to the goal, does that erase my pretense of imagining to be capable of doing something I can't really know that I can do? No, when I think of the word pretend, I do not think of it the way you do. For me pretend is like playing dress-up. You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end. If I understand you correctly, you pretend you are doing something and you actually are doing it. I don't pretend anything. I just do stuff. I really didn't know how to pretend I was a publisher. I just pretended to pretend lol  Now that is funny to me. Joe, you made me pretend to pretend something Here is where you have to pretend that I am honest when I say that your words are very important to me, because they are honest words, and because your unique experiences are no less valuable to me than any person ever alive, living, or who will live, because I have no capacity to know the absolute truth, and for all I know all life on earth depends upon you living the life you will live exactly the way you will live your life, without deviation of any kind in the least. I don't pretend that you are honest about those words Joe. I actually believe them. And if you should change your mind, and be dishonest, then I will be crushed. Sergey and I have a very short history, but a familiar one because of the rarity of such relationships happening, whereby a person who does not settle for less than better understanding meets a similarly driven person, so in that way I see a repeat of my relationship with you happening again with my relationship with Sergey. I am happy for you. I am not pretending to be happy for you. I am happy for you. I want you to have a bus load of friends. Sergey and I may not sit close on the bus if we can't figure out how to communicate with one another. But that does not mean that I do not want to be on the bus. (However, honestly, I felt like jumping off today) And that does not mean I don’t want to sit next to Sergey. I would like to be able to communicate with him. I think I have said to you before I have enough pain in my life without interpreting any from you. Well, I have enough without interpreting any from Sergey. I realize I am the one doing interpreting. So should I pretend something in this case? Today Sergey said something to me to the effect of having enough Jewish martyrs in his life. Those are not the exact words, so I am probably misinterpreting, but they have been erased so I cannot repeat them exactly. But what I am getting at is that Sergey thinks I am being a martyr. Well, I am not pretending to have pain. I am being honest. I am not pretending to be a martyr. I am not pretending anything. He may not like weakness he sees in me. I don't know. I do know that words often fail to work when the goal is to communicate accurate meaning. I am pretending to be a honest friend to you, Sergey, and Mike, and so far that goal appears to be working. Those are strange words to me. How can you pretend to be an honest friend? You are either an honest friend or you are not. And I think if you are not honest, then you are not a friend. I am not pretending to be your friend. I am being your friend. But then I guess I have to get into your head about pretending? If you can imagine being ahead of time to a place where you now find Sergey to be an honest friend worth the effort to know better, then you can pretend to see how you got there at that point. Are you saying that if I imagine Sergey to be a certain way he will be that way? Are you saying my perception creates my reality? I am not understanding your words. You know, or should know by now, that I do try to believe. Joe, what is it that you are trying to believe? I am jealous, you have certainly heard that much. Joe, there is nothing to be jealous of. • Revelation 22:17 KJV And the Spirit and the bride say, Come . And let him that heareth say , Come . And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. How do you know that Sergey, and many other people, were not tricked into trying to believe in God, and it turned out that they were actually trying to believe in a False God, and now they are jaded? That does not surprise me a bit. • 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. • 2 Corinthians 11:14 KJV And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. • Jeremiah 29:13 KJV And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Joe, is there anything that you are holding back from God? Any part of you that you are unwilling for Him to have? Do you have any idea as to how your welcome viewpoint affects my thoughts and actions in time, and in place, as the conveyor belt of human existence marches toward World War III and all that goes with it? Joe, the key word in that sentence for me is “welcome.” You welcome my viewpoint, even if it is not yours. I won't be the worst person you meet, nor the best, but I've earned trust, which isn't a prize, since you can trust that someone will lie to you, in any case. Joe, I do not trust that you lie to me. I trust that you tell me what you think is the truth. If you are going to lie to me, just say so. Say “This is a lie:…, or I am not going to tell you, or I can’t tell you, or I won’t tell you. But please, do not lie, because to me, there is no trust when a person lies. I don't think Sergey is willfully intending to cause you trouble, and I trust that you are not willfully intending to cause anyone any trouble. I don’t know Sergey’s intentions. I can barely know yours. But over and over, you seem to have good intentions. Does Sergey find cause to feel troubled? I don’t want to cause Sergey any trouble. I am sure I have already caused him trouble, though not intentionally, and I feel badly about that. It would have been better if I had never talked to him than to leave him with a bad taste in his mouth for me, a supposed Christian. What is face planting all about? I first saw the term facePALM on the DP and didn’t know what it meant, but I took note of the term…that it was new…and then I saw it again there on the DP. I figured it must be something new, but didn’t bother looking it up until Sergey used it. I figured I better find out. This is what I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facepalm : A facepalm (sometimes also face-palm or face palm) is the physical gesture of placing one's hand flat across one's face or lowering one's face into one's hand or hands. The gesture is found in many cultures as a display of frustration, disappointment, embarrassment,[1] shock, surprise or just plain sarcasm.[2] I assumed it was a display of frustration, but then again I do not interpret Sergey correctly so it could be a number of things according to the definition. Will I know? It seems to me that he has told you: Sergey: Now I feel obligated to explain facepalms. I suppose if one really wanted to know what the word means maybe a multiple choice would be in order and Sergey could pick the word that explains his picture: “display of frustration, disappointment, embarrassment,[1] shock, surprise or just plain sarcasm” Because I don’t know what he means. I cannot understand between my 2 ears. You know Joe, you and Sergey may get along very well because you are able to speak the same language. What I mean is that you are able to not misinterpret what he says. You know that I misinterpret a lot of things. It is a deficiency I have. I suppose I could or should be jealous? Joe, thank you for your welcome words. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Apr 13th, 2013 01:32 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear wrote:No, when I think of the word pretend, I do not think of it the way you do. For me pretend is like playing dress-up. You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end. If I understand you correctly, you pretend you are doing something and you actually are doing it. To me that is Static Time Thinking at work, and I don't think that way as much as I once did, and I think that my future will be less Static Time Thinking and more Dynamic Time Thinking. Does the little girl playing dress-up now have children? Did the mom once play dress up? Here is the quote again: For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. [highlight= #FFFF88]Fromm, 1961, 1968) To me those words convey a message that uncovers a willful effort to stupefy the victims, and of course that understanding accurately identifies the existence of criminals among us. To me the concept is simple and traceable back to the source. I don't know why other people have a problem seeing this, but the connection I make is visible to me right now. Your use of the word "pretend" appears to me to be duplicitous, as if a word can mean two things at once, which to me is a patented absurdity. To me the message that people can work to become something (pretend to be something until the goal is reached) is now made difficult to convey, since we two, just you and I, only us, are finding this to be difficult? Why? Our words are duplicitous? It is just us two, so where is the POWER that makes our words duplicitous? You think in terms of Static Time, to me, this is evident in your sentence as such: "You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end." I would not construct a sentence like that, not right now, not after reading that example of what I think is a case of someone thinking in terms of Static Time. How did I get to connecting these dots? I went on the quest (pretending that I could find the answer) to find the answer to the questions (and answers) offered by Equitable Commerce. So I went to the experts in Political Economy at The Austrian School of Economics, and I asked everyone who would entertain the questions. No answer was offered. No one even entertained my questions. I've spoken to you about this before, and you have seen how my conversations go when someone falsifies the effort to answer my questions. Perhaps here is another confusion as such: 1. Falsify, or counterfeit, pretense of knowing. 2. Genuine pretense of knowing. I went right to Carl Menger of the famous Austrian Economy Authority and what did I find? I found static time thinking. I found "scarcity" being equal to "value" whereby the "authority" claims that a condition of abundance literally removes all measure of "value" from Economy. How does someone like me explain such absurdity? Carl Menger, the Austrian School of Economic Professor, Founder, maker of all that expert knowledge of reality, so called, also claims that everyone, which is an absolute statement, will, as in everyone will, satisfy their own requirements to the exclusion of all others. My point here is to place in context the discovery of those words written by Marx. Here again: You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end. Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? The victims are those who are beset with Static Time thinking, and those who cause that Static Time thinking to beset those victims think Dynamically. What is the missing link in this effort to connect dots? Do you remember John Boyd and his Dynamic Thinking expressed as a OODA Loop where the Dynamic Thinker constantly Observes, Orients, Decides, and Acts? Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts, Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts... You can try to be mommy or daddy but you are still the kid in the end. You can try to be someone who does not pay the extortion fee but you are going to pay the extortion fee, one way or the other, in the end. I cringe when I have those thoughts, and I try to find the source of those thoughts, not your sentence, but my sentence that is intended to be something you can Observe. You can orient yourself in a relative way between you, your self, your dynamic being, and my sentence. You can decide if that sentence I offer has any relevance to your future state of being dynamic, and then you can act, and your actions will be followed by observation, as you may observe a sentence you wrote in response to these words right here ending with this period. I don't pretend that you are honest about those words Joe. I actually believe them. And if you should change your mind, and be dishonest, then I will be crushed. Here, with me, you have nothing to worry about, but I am only one person. You may want to think dynamically as to your vulnerabilities, which constitute a weakness that other people can easily observe. Your children, your family, not just you, cannot afford to be crushed. You, being honest, are in my opinion one of, if not the most, important people alive today. That will prove to be true, and how can that not make sense? What is the relative measure? You compared to the highest paid liars? I am happy for you. I am not pretending to be happy for you. I am happy for you. There is where you appear to be pressing your point as to your viewpoint on this word "pretend" and I can restate that my thinking is such that I think the word I wanted to use to convey the message I wanted to convey, had to do with a state of being not what the person wanted to be, at this point in time, and then that person moves in the direction that person wants to be, so actions are taken to go from here to there. Which word works to fit that goal? I chose pretend, and I did not mean to choose the word deceive. As in: I want to deceive myself, so I pretend to be something I am not. If hope that clears that up, and if you can explain exactly what you mean with that word "pretend" then I can further measure where our use of the word diverges and goes on separate paths instead of our capacity to find agreement in the meaning of words, so as to convey messages intact in an agreeable way. You being happy for me, could easily be misunderstood by me, as it sounds similar to me be jealous of you. That is another subject to work on, perhaps, going way off the Political Economy stuff that drives me into discussion with honest people. I can offer, in response to you being happy for me, with a thought process that recurs, time and again, where I picture you in the garden, or feeding the kids, and you are smiling. If that is entirely in my imagination, then I am happy for me, because such a perception makes me smile. If it is real, and you are, at times, in the garden, smiling, and you are feeding the kids, and smiling, then I may be, as you say, happy for you. Does that sound agreeable? I realize I am the one doing interpreting. So should I pretend something in this case? The Bus is here, and we can sit next to each other in these seats. If there is a problem, then there is a solution, if there is no solution, then to me it is a problem if you think there is a solution when there is no solution. He may not like weakness he sees in me. My suggestion at this point is for you to be the best you can be and I can't offer any other details because I am not you. I can sit on this bus, next to you, because I want to, because you are honest, and because your honest viewpoints are proving to be very valuable to me, more than I can say with words. If you never meet anyone who challenges your faith, will that be a surprise? You look in the mirror, figuratively, and never see someone who challenges your faith? Ever, and life is not over yet, right? You are here now at this period. . . . Those are strange words to me. How can you pretend to be an honest friend? If we can agree to meanings, then the words can be random arrangements of symbols. Example Meaning A: Strive to reach for a goal. Meaning B: Create and maintain a false image or False Front. Word for meaning A is now: Eaurp Word for meaning B is now: Uemm We can stop using the word pretend completely if that word confuses the intended messages. Those are strange words to me. How can you pretend to be an honest friend? I can eaurp to be a friend so long as I avoid resorting to uemm. I can pretend to be a friend, not knowing if I am one, so long as I avoid pretense of being a friend, when in my own mind I am nothing of the sort. Dynamic thinking opens up a different perspective on how people interact with each other, in my opinion. We are not the same person from minute to minute, so we each have a relationship with our past examples of our own beings, and we have a relationship with our future examples of our own beings, in time, relating to ourselves in time, so it stands to reason, in my opinion, that the way we interact with our own memories, and our own expectations of our own selves, affects (adversely or productively) the way we interact with other people. Discussion on individuality in Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren and in The Science of Society by Stephen Pearl Andrews was my introduction into Dynamic Thinking along with my reading of many words written by Fighter Pilots who explain how Dynamic Thinking works in Combat. How about this angle: Are you in combat with your past? Are you in combat with your future? If you can focus on those questions now, after this period. Then what happens? I'm here on the bus. I read your welcome words. I respond honestly. I hold back language that I use freely when not in your company. I hold back things that you find to be unwelcome, things that may appear to be vulgar to you. That is not deception on my part, as far as I know. I am a sinner, that is as plain as the nose on my face. You are more than welcome here, because you are honest, and because your viewpoint is more precious than I can ever measure, because I am merely a human being, complete with many human faults. I like the bus. I like your company on the bus. When I can no longer afford to do the things I like, I will stop. I think in terms of POWER. Power is dynamic. But then I guess I have to get into your head about pretending? Take out the word "pretend" and put in place the definition of the word you intend to convey without error and if I can understand the definition, in fact, then that understanding can be demonstrated to our mutual satisfaction and agreement. Such as: Meaning A: Strive to reach for a goal. Meaning B: Create and maintain a false image or False Front. Meaning C: Fill in the blank Joe, what is it that you are trying to believe? Here we are back at the fence and we are in the Forum Topic Invented, Produced, and now being Maintained for that expressed purpose. I can start with one thing so as not to confuse any other things. I can start with this one thing because this one thing was on my mind more than once in that past few days. God is a person like existence, having arms and legs, I suppose, so while I am doing this supposing, I think in terms of this fence right here, and I can meet you at this fence, and I can try to believe that God is a person like existence, having arms and legs. Is that what I am supposed to be believing? That is a starting point, or not? Joe, is there anything that you are holding back from God? Any part of you that you are unwilling for Him to have? If we can start on this effort to reach this goal, I think a good start is this he business. To you God is a he? Does God have arms and legs? To me God is a the power of creation, and more simply, or more difficult to understand, I don't know, God is truth. God = Truth I think I've met you at this fence with this before, and we ran into disagreement at this point already. So I return to the fence with the question about God having arms and legs. You ask: "Joe, is there anything that you are holding back from God? Any part of you that you are unwilling for Him to have?" Him, where is this Him, and how can I answer your question if there is no Him to hold back from, anything or nothing? Does God, that you believe, have arms and legs? I have a hard time believing in the God you see, to hold back something, or give everything, when I see no such thing. Does that make sense to you? It makes sense to me. I am trying to believe what you believe, and here is a possible point of departure. You have a God in mind, that is a he, and I don't. How do I put arms and legs on the God I believe, or is that something I am supposed to be doing according to your understanding of God - at all? Joe, the key word in that sentence for me is “welcome.” You welcome my viewpoint, even if it is not yours. There isn't anything in my experience to cause me to think that your viewpoint is unwelcome in the least, with, or without, religion. I've told you about my welcoming people knocking on the door with bibles in their hands. I do not shut the door until I start hearing about how God is promising Real Estate. I have to make scrambled eggs at the moment. You know Joe, you and Sergey may get along very well because you are able to speak the same language. What I mean is that you are able to not misinterpret what he says. You know that I misinterpret a lot of things. It is a deficiency I have. I suppose I could or should be jealous? Finding agreement is a solution to a problem, it seems to me, and the problem being solved can be, itself, disagreeable? What is the problem? I see people investing in their own torture and murder by people who are extremely evil and the word evil means, very specifically means, individual people who love to torture and murder innocent victims.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 08:38 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I am looking forward to replying to this discussion. When I initially read it a couple of days ago, I thought there were a lot of interesting topics to explore. I've spent the day on Amish errands, so I expect to be back here tomorrow. I also want to explore the links in this comment on another post regarding the bombing today in Boston a term called "the overture" http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3039607
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 08:53 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, When you get time I'm almost all ears.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 11:25 am |
|
17th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Thanks Joe, I am starting to work now. I have to admit. Sometimes I just want to goof off and write things that are easy for me. This is going to take thought and work. But I am starting now. Joe wrote: To me that is Static Time Thinking at work, and I don't think that way as much as I once did, and I think that my future will be less Static Time Thinking and more Dynamic Time Thinking. That is very perceptive Joe. I had not looked at from that angle. That is a fun way to look at things! Here is the quote again: Joe, I haven’t understood what means from the first time you quoted it to me. I still don’t understand what it means. Is Fromm saying Marx was right or wrong? I can bearly understand it. Could one say that labor is the pretending? And the capital is the product of pretending? Will not your pretending to be an author which is the labor end up with a tangible substance called a book which will be the capital product of your labor and if you were to sell that book and that book became a best-seller the manifestation of your labor will continue to bear fruit? Or if you just gave the book away and the ideas in the book caused other people to pretend such that reality changes, would not that reality continue to be the capital product of your labor? To me those words convey a message that uncovers a willful effort to stupefy the victims, and of course that understanding accurately identifies the existence of criminals among us. Who is trying to willfully stupefy who? Is capitalism that which stupefies the victims? Is capitalism the manifestation of criminal labor? To me the concept is simple and traceable back to the source. I don't know why other people have a problem seeing this, but the connection I make is visible to me right now. Your use of the word "pretend" appears to me to be duplicitous, as if a word can mean two things at once, which to me is a patented absurdity. Well to me, words can mean more than one thing and that is why CONTEXT is important. I think that is the limitation involved with the English language. The same word can have more than one meaning and it is within the perception of the author and the hearer to get into the same perception of the word so that communication takes place. I now understand your meaning of the word pretend. When you said you were pretending to be a friend, I heard you saying: I am really not a friend, but I am pretending to be a friend. You were saying I am doing the hard work of pretending or practicing to be a friend. Practice makes perfect? You think in terms of Static Time, to me, this is evident in your sentence as such: Well it took me 40 years to be a mommy and I did not do very much pretending during that time. And when it finally happened I have been pretending full time! I AM a mommy. The word AM is not static to me at all. It is a word of continual being. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Moses wanted to know who to say “said so” God’s answer: • Exodus 3:14 KJV And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said , Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. My point here is to place in context the discovery of those words written by Marx. The living is to rule over the dead. So John Boyd’s [‘Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts, Observes, Orients, Decides, Acts...’] Continuum is dynamic. So what is static? Trying once and then giving up? I don't pretend that you are honest about those words Joe. I actually believe them. And if you should change your mind, and be dishonest, then I will be crushed. Well, it seems to me that if someone wants to crush me they have identified themselves as a dynamic enemy if they observe vulnerability and then pursue Boyd’s continuum. Hmm, I wonder what perception and observation have in common? That was a side question. So I guess what you are saying to me is that I need to use Boyd’s continuum to protect myself and that may be by removing that vulnerability from me? That vulnerability to be crushed by being lied to? To me, I would not be human if a person’s lie did not crush me. I would become a hardened person who did not care how I treated people or how they treated me. I think vulnerability sets the stage for the Golden Rule. I am willing to stick my neck out and treat you good in hopes that you will do the same in return. I am vulnerable. My neck is on the line. Your children, your family, not just you, cannot afford to be crushed. When they come for the Christians, I imagine we will be crushed unless The Lord has a different plan for us. You being happy for me, could easily be misunderstood by me, as it sounds similar to me be jealous of you. That is another subject to work on, perhaps, going way off the Political Economy stuff that drives me into discussion with honest people. Yes, when we see good things happening to our friends, or we see our friends enjoying good things, or we perceive that of our friends, it makes us happy. I AM HERE. I HAVE TO STOP NOW BECAUSE I HAVE COMPANY COMING: I realize I am the one doing interpreting. So should I pretend something in this case?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 02:09 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear,Joe, I haven’t understood what means from the first time you quoted it to me. I still don’t understand what it means. Is Fromm saying Marx was right or wrong? I can bearly understand it. Could one say that labor is the pretending? And the capital is the product of pretending? Will not your pretending to be an author which is the labor end up with a tangible substance called a book which will be the capital product of your labor and if you were to sell that book and that book became a best-seller the manifestation of your labor will continue to bear fruit? I think that the working question was the point being made by Fromm. What is to control who? Is a person going to control another person, and therefore one person is subject to the will of another person, which often is the case, and often the case involves deception, threats of violence, and violence as the power employed so as one person can control another person. Is it not false to say that money controls a person to cause a person to do things? To me this is a fundamental question that is asked by any person entering into the business of controlling people. Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? To identify one of the things, like money, that is "said" to control people, is one of many things, and a category of things can be called "capital," and a criminal, and especially a legal criminal, is apt to call a victim a thing too. Who (what thing, be it human or inhuman) will rule over which thing (another human or inhuman thing)? Is a lie a thing? Is a corporation a thing? Is a person a thing? If you are being ruled, deceptively, threateningly, and violently, at your cost, and to the benefit of another thing, is it likely that the thing ruling you by those methods is human, inhuman, or a rock, or a chair, or a pile of gold, or a barrel of oil, or a ocean full of lies? Speaking of the book, did you get the e-mail I sent? In response to the possibility of income flowing to us for that book I was thinking that it may be a good idea to sell it in exchange for non-fraud money, or if possible to take that income and redeem it in Lawful Money instead of Fraud money, if the better option is not affordable. Money is a thing too, and there are at least two types, one being willfully deceptive money, and the other merely accurate. Which thing rules whom? I don't know why there is a word "whom" while there is a perfectly good word with less symbols that works just as well as far as I know: who. Who Whom Who What is the difference, besides more work? Who is trying to willfully stupefy who? Is capitalism that which stupefies the victims? Is capitalism the manifestation of criminal labor? Find a person and find out the accurate answer. If you know that the person trading something they have for something you have and you know that person can get the same exact thing for half price next door, do you tell them, or do you not tell them that they can get the same thing next door for half the price you demand? If you tell them: then they are no longer stupid about how scarce the supply is of what you are demanding to be your price (or your cost of the trade) for that thing you have, even if that thing you have is a slave who is unable to see a better choice than being your slave; not you as in bear, but you and in a hypothetical person who may not be as human as the standard God issue, which is you. I think it is safe to say that you don't have a dungeon full of slaves kept for your exclusive fun and profit. Practice makes perfect? So long as the practice isn't fraudulent? The word AM is not static to me at all. It is a word of continual being. If I think that you were thinking in static time, described as I have tried, and you are not doing so, then my knowing of my error is much better for me than perpetuation by me of such error. The word pretend, as I think about it, is not as competitive a word when the idea is to figure out why words have so many meanings, and a term, in my opinion, is a more competitive term when the goal is to communicate why words end up with duplicitous meanings: Extraordinary Rendition. So what is static? Trying once and then giving up? I think in terms of power, so the concept of static thinking to me is a device invented by the Legal Criminals (or criminals who have not made their crimes legal) whereby the effort is realized at to point at which a target no longer has the power to control their own thoughts and actions. I realize that there is a huge step between any single example of static thinking and being a subject of Legal Crime, as if a whole lot of missing evidence is left out of the dot connecting I am trying to offer to you. The reason for the existence of static time thinking, to me, has to be understood in order to realize what does exist (presuming of course that my viewpoint is accurate and therefore worth knowing better). How does an individual human being, or a like-minded group of individual human beings working together to arrive at the same goal, how to, how to, how to make the targets work harder so that the person or people doing the targeting don't have to work so hard, and there is an abundance of stuff produced that is worth the effort to steal? The targets have to be rendered powerless to stop the process of having their power produced by them, the targets, transferring to those who are doing the targeting. One obvious power is to know that victims are victims. If a targeted victim is rendered incapable of even knowing that the targeted victim is targeted, and the victim is rendered incapable of knowing that the targeted victim is a victim, then that obstacle in place of the criminal and success measured by the criminal is no longer an obstacle. Static thinking, to me, can be seen in that illustration offered by John Taylor Gatto with the Flea Circus. The fleas are thinking only in terms of Abject Belief in following orders, without question. Their dynamic thinking is turned off, or their independent thinking is turned off, or their POWER to command their will is turned off, but that is merely fleas. A rat in a maze may be in paradise compared to having to fight other rats for the last remaining scarce supply of whatever rats may eat when no "higher power" is "helping" them by "giving" them something better to do, according to the higher power. Rats have plenty to eat in the maze, and all they have to do is complete the maze, which is one thing, and only one thing, over and over and over and over again, no inventiveness, no creation of new things, no wandering off the beaten path, no adaptation, no power to do anything other than follow those orders without question. Human beings, on the other hand, when not being directed by a director (not that I am saying that God is false, but I am using the word director to mean another human being is directing human beings), are apt to think in dynamic terms naturally, there may be likely to find a routine worth repeating, sure, but as soon as a better routine is obviously better, they shed worse for better, and it is measurably natural that human beings are designed to look for better and be unsatisfied with worse. So that is dynamic thinking. Seeking better from worse. Static thinking is Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question. Dynamic thinking, seeking better from worse, is Power Independence, or the POWER to seek better from worse, and obviously, as any case may be, realized, as better is produced out of worse. Static thinking is destructive from the measure of the individual, no longer being independent, having no power to defend against victimization, and subject to whatever the external power demands. Who controls whom? If a person is dynamic in their thoughts then they are exercising their power of will to do whatever they, individually, decide to do, independent of external control over that power of will. If a person is static in their thinking, then that power of will is turned off, and they would be like a ship without a rudder, excepting the obvious fact that the power of will was shut of by an external power, and that external power shut of that individual power of will for a reason, an obviously measure reason. Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes? Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes with your Federal Reserve Notes? Now, there is an example right there, where I find myself thinking in Static Terms once again. To illustrate the point, I will change the wording of the questions offered from me to you, and this will be a competitive, dynamic, rewriting of those two questions. Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes? Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes with their money? Does that make any sense to you? I wonder what perception and observation have in common? That was a side question. But you are exemplifying the point, and here is where a Mike or a Sergey also exemplify the point, since they are not watching television when they are failing to follow orders without question. The four words used by the Fighter Pilot from America is one word more than the words translated into English from the Fighter Pilot from Germany. See, decide, act, was the routine told by the person Erich Hartmann who has so far stood as the most successful Fighter Pilot in human history. The concepts work out dynamically and the words merely take a picture of what can be understood in a dynamic sense. So I guess what you are saying to me is that I need to use Boyd’s continuum to protect myself and that may be by removing that vulnerability from me? I real, and current, terms the example offered may suffice as an answer here: From this: Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes? Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes with your Federal Reserve Notes? TO THIS: Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes? Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes with their money? Which freezes you onto the hamster wheel? Which begins to shed light in the direction of greater power for you to employ as you see fit? How much longer will you pay the extortion fee with the fraudulent money? Why is Mike, Sergey, and Joe fighting over the disputable fact that perception exists, when we all know that there are only two things that are certain? Death and Taxes? I question both. I think vulnerability sets the stage for the Golden Rule. To me there are many ways of describing the same process, such as the saying that goes "innocent until proven guilty". I like the words written by Lysander Spooner, which may ring as true: The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.” This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due. To do otherwise ends up rendering the dishonest person incapable of knowing better from worse? My neck is on the line. That is an observation of fact, and to think otherwise, as if trading your dynamic mind into a static one may buy you a few more days of abject misery, is a fraudulent deal invented by criminals, so why fall victim to such nonsense? They have given themselves badges so the deal must be worth something? When they come for the Christians, I imagine we will be crushed unless The Lord has a different plan for us. There is hope and there are things that can be done to move toward better and away from worse - it seems to me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 05:39 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Finishing earlier reply and then I will go back to the reply from the earlier reply Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (and I have my html code all messed up too and I need to start dinner so I am probably not going to fix it. My suggestion at this point is for you to be the best you can be and I can't offer any other details because I am not you. I can sit on this bus, next to you, because I want to, because you are honest, and because your honest viewpoints are proving to be very valuable to me, more than I can say with words. Thanks Joe. I really had to take your words which I believe you probably used Boyd’s continuum to encourage me to practice in the right direction and Words I already knew were a great assistance to me. This one brought the reality that I might not like the consequences of continuing: Sort results by: Book of the Bible | Most relevant search result • Matthew 5:25 KJV Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. After considering the negative consequences of proceeding in the direction I was headed. I consider the positive side of the problem. • Proverbs 19:11 KJV The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression. There was another one, but I can’t remember what it was now. And then there was Joe: My suggestion at this point is for you to be the best you can… Who practices being a good friend and offers good advice. And I know, I can’t really be sorry if I continue to harp… If you never meet anyone who challenges your faith, will that be a surprise? Actually Joe, I can look at this 2 ways: 1. My faith was not being challenged in the sense of sharing it because that is not what was going on. 2. My personal faith was challenged because I had to live within it’s boundaries instead of what I wanted to continue doing to hammer away. I'm here on the bus. I read your welcome words. I respond honestly. I hold back language that I use freely when not in your company. I hold back things that you find to be unwelcome, things that may appear to be vulgar to you. That is not deception on my part, as far as I know. I think it is a sign of a good friend who will consider how something makes the other person naturally feel. But Joe, the part I don’t understand is why would you ever want to be vulgar? Is there pleasure in it? You are more than welcome here, because you are honest, and because your viewpoint is more precious than I can ever measure, because I am merely a human being, complete with many human faults. Thank you Joe, you know I am always questioning my welcome. I think I am in, I need to go get your words…oh it looks like I was supposed to answer some questions: Are you in combat with your past? Yes, I am probably in combat with my past. I should not be though. I should be doing this: 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but th is one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. In that sense, I suppose I am in combat with my future to continually press forward for a goal. I like the bus. I like your company on the bus. When I can no longer afford to do the things I like, I will stop. It is a fun bus ride. There is so much to learn and talk about. I know, though that it takes power and power may not be available for a bus, but I am glad I got on and didn’t miss it! Joe, what is it that you are trying to believe? Joe, Jesus said these words: • John 4:24 KJV God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. What do those words mean to you? If we can start on this effort to reach this goal, I think a good start is this he business. To you God is a he?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 17th, 2013 09:57 am |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, The concept of that which is tolerable and that which is intolerable varies from person to person. I think it is a sign of a good friend who will consider how something makes the other person naturally feel. But Joe, the part I don’t understand is why would you ever want to be vulgar? Is there pleasure in it? If you were to watch a movie by Tom Green, or to listen to his Stand up Comic routine you may be deeply offended by it, the same goes for many other entertainers, and I find their competitive examples to be very funny for reasons that my not be in my own best interest if I were to study and find the precise reason why there is pleasure in that source of laughter. Example: The first time I flew in an Airplane I was at about age 8, and I laughed the whole time. It was a long time ago, and as far as I can remember it was not a nervous laughter, but that makes more sense, since I laughed the whole time literally; as in: laugh out loud. If I could push a button and make everyone tolerate everyone else then there would be no more crime or would there be nothing but crime? I don't push the button, so I tolerate what I think is tolerable, and I can't tolerate what I can't afford to tolerate, as far as I can see, and your help is appreciated; and mostly your help is appreciated because you voluntarily, and honestly, offer help, which to me means that if you had a button to make me a Christian you would not push that button and make me be as you think I should be, and so I feel safe with you. I try not to adversely affect you with my thoughts and actions that I perceive to be unwelcome to you, because you do not welcome vulgar things that I have no problem entertaining, seeing, experiencing, and laughing about, or rejecting as any case may be according to my own sense of moral understanding, which is admittedly not your sense of moral understanding in fine details. I general terms, on the other hand, I think we both can agree that a person pretending to be God, and then ordering "God's" children around, to make them into liars, thieves, rapists, child sex slavers, torturers, and murderers, is immoral. The true measure of a true Christian, it seems to me, is demonstrable. I am not one. I tolerate, and derive pleasure from, things that I trust that you would find to be intolerably vulgar. Thank you Joe, you know I am always questioning my welcome. Why would you not be welcome? If anyone has any reason to avoid someone, it seems to me, the shoe is on the other foot: if you play with the pigs you may get soiled. In that sense, I suppose I am in combat with my future to continually press forward for a goal. The ideas of realizing dynamic time, to me, open up a viewpoint on competition that is the genuine, and not the counterfeit, form of competition: having to do with reaching for better and leaving behind worse. If there are any enemies, they are criminals, and they are reaching for worse and leaving behind better, at the expense of the innocent victims they target. If it turns out that your understandings are all true, all those lists of all those sins are destructive, and not in any way productive, then that makes sense to me. I work on those ideas too. If the slightest sin is a crime against my own future self, destroying myself now, destroying my future, then I am a failing to preserve my own innocence, and I am failing to reach for better, and I am reaching for worse instead. We do not have to nit pick on the sins; however, and that is where we may find our common ground. If you consider my watching a movie that you consider to be vulgar, a sin, and I can roughly agree, in a relative sense, but I have not paid a dime to the Legal Criminals all year (not that that is even possible at this time), then the greater sin to me is obvious and measurable if you have invested heavily into more torture, more mass murder, and more destruction of millions of innocent people alive today, and destruction of innocent people who may never be alive since these HEAVY investments into destruction are threatening all life on Earth. I do understand the absolute concept of moral behavior versus sin, so you don't need to repeat that part of God's word. I am not one of God's Children. I willfully sin, from a Christian understanding, because I do not have such a definite, finite, measure of what is, exactly, sin, and what is not, exactly, sin. I think there is a very powerful competition going on as to the finding of that finite edge, and it is genuine and it is not counterfeit. You have your safe place, you have a belief in an authority that tells you precisely what is right and wrong, in some cases, and in other cases your power to know right and wrong is dictated to you as being this or that according to God when God finds cause to do things that you are not allowed to do, etc.: and we meet at that fence now and then. I don't have that safe place. I run amok at my own command of my own understandings of right and wrong. One way is safer, I suppose, and it makes sense, and that is why I say I am jealous. The other way is dangerous, and why do dangerous things entertain me? Ask Mike about the time he helped me take off of a mountain flying my Hang Glider. God did not make me do that, and yet I did it. It is too risky now, in my current life, but seriously, I'm not going to find the right or wrong of it in The Bible. I'm not even looking. You bring to the discussion words that are competitive words, productive words, wise words, and it is not my concern as to the source of the words, so much as the meaning of the words; again the dynamic thinking here has to do with observing these words, orienting these words, deciding on these words, and acting upon these words, all being relative to being alive now and reaching for better from worse which will be the case as life, being dynamic, continues. The context I bring to the discussion continues to be the same thing, over, and over, and over, and over again, which is Legal Crime, and the legal criminals doing what they are paid so well to do, over, and over, and over, and over again. To me there is no need to search high and low for minute examples of evil at work. Joe, Jesus said these words: • John 4:24 KJV God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. What do those words mean to you? The meaning I claim to know, concerning those words, despite my lack of power to do so, so my guess concerning those words, is that communication concerning how to move from worse to better is best found if the seeker looks for the truth, and the seeker does not settle for less than the truth. So help me God?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:28 pm | Page: 1 2 |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > bear = Joe | Top |
